Crosswords1 min ago
What Is Consciousness?
184 Answers
A sort of carry over from my "question for naomi" thread.
Have been reading the tale end of that debate (with a lot of interest) between naomi and others regarding energy and whether it can survive death. It seems to me that at times there might be some conflict as to what we mean by 'energy'. If we replace the word energy with consciousness then the debate makes a bit more sense....to me anyhow. The question then becomes can consciousness survive (in whatever shape or form). It then begs the question,
what exactly is consciousness?
From everything ive read, it appears to be one of the big questions, as science , as yet, has no idea exactly what consciousness is or how it arises.
Just curious, how do we define consciousness and what is it?
Thanks
Have been reading the tale end of that debate (with a lot of interest) between naomi and others regarding energy and whether it can survive death. It seems to me that at times there might be some conflict as to what we mean by 'energy'. If we replace the word energy with consciousness then the debate makes a bit more sense....to me anyhow. The question then becomes can consciousness survive (in whatever shape or form). It then begs the question,
what exactly is consciousness?
From everything ive read, it appears to be one of the big questions, as science , as yet, has no idea exactly what consciousness is or how it arises.
Just curious, how do we define consciousness and what is it?
Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I read Jim as saying
1) On death consciousness "energy" dissolves into heat, losing stored information in the process.
2) If ghost do, in fact exist, the fact we can see them means photons or other particles which physics can detect and measure.
My counter to 2) is that ghosts exist inside the consciousness of the witness - which makes multiple witness events especially intruiging.
1) On death consciousness "energy" dissolves into heat, losing stored information in the process.
2) If ghost do, in fact exist, the fact we can see them means photons or other particles which physics can detect and measure.
My counter to 2) is that ghosts exist inside the consciousness of the witness - which makes multiple witness events especially intruiging.
-- answer removed --
I'm not throwing a hissy fit, but it does frustrate me when you continually make accusations of arrogance, imply that I'm insulting people, deride my English, dismiss my arguments, reject my answers out-of-hand, etc. etc... anything, in other words, but engage in the discussion, instead relying on "this is childish". One way or another, this is playing the man and not the ball, which is usually regarded as bad form in debates. It isn't throwing "a hissy fit" to point this out.
In terms of those two points, they are two different aspects of the same position. The first point explains how consciousness being "energy" would in no way imply that it could outlast death. The second explains how the apparent visibility of "ghosts" would put them within the ability of current physics to analyse -- and, indeed, to reject if that is necessary. This would counter the suggestion that we have to wait for new technologies to be developed to be able to say anything about these phenomena. While you may not have said that in this thread, it's a point you've brought up elsewhere.
There is no contradiction between the two, and they are merely different aspects of the same position, which I have made clear earlier on in this thread and others. They are two different points, but why should this be a problem? They complement each other.
In terms of those two points, they are two different aspects of the same position. The first point explains how consciousness being "energy" would in no way imply that it could outlast death. The second explains how the apparent visibility of "ghosts" would put them within the ability of current physics to analyse -- and, indeed, to reject if that is necessary. This would counter the suggestion that we have to wait for new technologies to be developed to be able to say anything about these phenomena. While you may not have said that in this thread, it's a point you've brought up elsewhere.
There is no contradiction between the two, and they are merely different aspects of the same position, which I have made clear earlier on in this thread and others. They are two different points, but why should this be a problem? They complement each other.
By way of a sidetrack, as I was catching up, there was the wire plus electricity analogy which I went along with only up to the point where 'residual energy' was mooted.
My preference is to think about neural networks and all the possible connection permutations they permit. Draw 10 dots in random locations and see how many unique shapes you can draw by changing the sequence you connect them in. If you don't self-impose a rule on how many dots to connect to make any given shape, you can create hundreds of shapes from just 10 dots.
We have 10 thousand million brain cells, by contrast. An unimaginable number of connection permutations; ample room to explain the sophistication of consciouness.
To me, survival of consciousness beyond death reduces the brain to something like a transmitter/receiver device, to interface with this 'thing' which is necessarily external, if it is to be capable of surviving physical trauma to the body.
My preference is to think about neural networks and all the possible connection permutations they permit. Draw 10 dots in random locations and see how many unique shapes you can draw by changing the sequence you connect them in. If you don't self-impose a rule on how many dots to connect to make any given shape, you can create hundreds of shapes from just 10 dots.
We have 10 thousand million brain cells, by contrast. An unimaginable number of connection permutations; ample room to explain the sophistication of consciouness.
To me, survival of consciousness beyond death reduces the brain to something like a transmitter/receiver device, to interface with this 'thing' which is necessarily external, if it is to be capable of surviving physical trauma to the body.
@Old_Geezer
//If folk who claim to have been abducted by aliens return to us and tell us something they could not possibly have known through 'normal means' and which proves to be true then maybe we should take them seriously.//
No-one took you up on this, which is a pity. Care to give us an example of "turns out to be true"?
//If folk who claim to have been abducted by aliens return to us and tell us something they could not possibly have known through 'normal means' and which proves to be true then maybe we should take them seriously.//
No-one took you up on this, which is a pity. Care to give us an example of "turns out to be true"?
Hypo, you seem to have condensed the arguments very well, I hope your efforts are appreciated by others too.
Naomi , I recall you declaring that scientists were arrogant when one of them had the temerity to suggest that you didn't understand what science was. Now who would know, a scientist perhaps?
Naomi , I recall you declaring that scientists were arrogant when one of them had the temerity to suggest that you didn't understand what science was. Now who would know, a scientist perhaps?
Hypognosis, I disagree with number 1 – pure conjecture. Number 2, I think we might be missing something – although your mention of multiple witnesses leads my thoughts elsewhere. Not a ‘ghost’ as such, but the events at Fatima in Portugal, where a huge crowd, variously estimated between 30,000 and 100,000, including reporters, allegedly witnessed the same event.
http://
It’s all very religious, so I’m very sceptical indeed. There must have been some there who didn't see it. Or are they just not saying?
Jom, I would have hoped that ‘scientists’ taking part in any discussion were intellectually above reacting with spite. I’m truly surprised at you.
http://
It’s all very religious, so I’m very sceptical indeed. There must have been some there who didn't see it. Or are they just not saying?
Jom, I would have hoped that ‘scientists’ taking part in any discussion were intellectually above reacting with spite. I’m truly surprised at you.
"I disagree with number 1 – pure conjecture."
It's conjectural to a point, yet, but not really pure conjecture. It's based on observations of how energy works. But anyway, how is it different from posing a question such as "could consciousness survive beyond death?" How much more purely conjectural can you get than that? Especially when the preceding passage draws a false analogy with electrons and wires.
Multiple witness events are among the hardest to "explain away" so I've generally shied away from trying to. Up to a point, though, the same sorts of problem that emerge in single witness events apply there, too.
"I would have hoped that ‘scientists’ taking part in any discussion were intellectually above reacting with spite."
It would be a nice thought, but the most accurate definition of scientist would be "someone who studies science", and unfortunately this doesn't always come alongside someone who is polite, selfless and well-behaved. In a recent talk, John Ellis, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, explained how he wasn't yet convinced that his "pet" theory, Supersymmetry, could be regarded as dead given the lack of detection so far at the LHC. Well, actually he said that this view was "bullsh*t".
Scientists are often humans first.
It's conjectural to a point, yet, but not really pure conjecture. It's based on observations of how energy works. But anyway, how is it different from posing a question such as "could consciousness survive beyond death?" How much more purely conjectural can you get than that? Especially when the preceding passage draws a false analogy with electrons and wires.
Multiple witness events are among the hardest to "explain away" so I've generally shied away from trying to. Up to a point, though, the same sorts of problem that emerge in single witness events apply there, too.
"I would have hoped that ‘scientists’ taking part in any discussion were intellectually above reacting with spite."
It would be a nice thought, but the most accurate definition of scientist would be "someone who studies science", and unfortunately this doesn't always come alongside someone who is polite, selfless and well-behaved. In a recent talk, John Ellis, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, explained how he wasn't yet convinced that his "pet" theory, Supersymmetry, could be regarded as dead given the lack of detection so far at the LHC. Well, actually he said that this view was "bullsh*t".
Scientists are often humans first.
@naomi
//
Jim, it’s purely conjectural because we can only guess at what this form of energy might be.//
We know this much about it: it is beyond the reach of all extant scientific detection equipment. That makes it sci-fi (other dimensions and all that guff).
People have a habit of actualising things they liked from sci-fi - it's a draw for getting funding. Until such a time, maybe you should chat with authors, rather than scientists? Think creatively about what this 'energy' can do to the real universe such that scientists can gonlooking for supportive evidence.
I'm sure you've said this before, scientists are good at analysing things but are weak on the creativity side e.g. they struggle to turn a discovery into a practical, profitable, invention.
//
Something that potentially retains the past consciousness of a living being after death? Are we currently aware of anything that might be capable of that?
//
Yes. Writing. The internet is the nearest thing an atheist can get to the afterlife.
:-)
//
Jim, it’s purely conjectural because we can only guess at what this form of energy might be.//
We know this much about it: it is beyond the reach of all extant scientific detection equipment. That makes it sci-fi (other dimensions and all that guff).
People have a habit of actualising things they liked from sci-fi - it's a draw for getting funding. Until such a time, maybe you should chat with authors, rather than scientists? Think creatively about what this 'energy' can do to the real universe such that scientists can gonlooking for supportive evidence.
I'm sure you've said this before, scientists are good at analysing things but are weak on the creativity side e.g. they struggle to turn a discovery into a practical, profitable, invention.
//
Something that potentially retains the past consciousness of a living being after death? Are we currently aware of anything that might be capable of that?
//
Yes. Writing. The internet is the nearest thing an atheist can get to the afterlife.
:-)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Home & Garden24 mins ago
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank39 mins ago
Crosswords53 mins ago
What's The Issue With Self Service?
News55 mins ago
